Wallis vs. Dobson

According to "Life on the Edge" (one of the two Dobson books my parents forced me to read and yes you can guess the other) Dobson was once quite a good tennis player, so if this turns into ultimate death match I think advantage Dobson. Having said that, Wallis has a beard so he's probably fiesty. Likewise, if the debate is attempting to get a handle on the demands of Christ on our culture than Wallis wins hands down. There are two points to make, at least, about why there doesn't need to be a debate: 1. Dobson is flat out wrong. In terms of what "we" generally mean when "we" say moral (I think something close to what people ought to do in a given situation) then Wallis is 1000% correct and its a ridiculous boring debate. 2. What "we" mean when "we" say moral is so suspect, nebulous and devoid of purpose that it really makes a debate trivial at best and a pompous waste of time at most. For a brilliant survey of what how this comes to be, read Alistair MacIntyre's seminal "After Virture" If you do not have the next two months, Here is a concise outline of the book.
I suspect thought that if you got Dobson in a room, and Wallis in a room, and asked them tell you what they mean by "moral" they may be able to come some sort of definition they "agreed" to. I also suspect, however, that these definitions would be so tainted by their American, modernist, accomadationist (less so Wallis) selves that any definition they decided on either wouldn't exist in reality, or if it happened to exist, wouldn't be particularly Christian. I side with Wallis in this discussion, particularly because his words sound more like Jesus to me. Wallis wants to make doing things Jesus said to do important. On that level I vote for Wallis. Both of them want to make America a great place to live in and really believe the Christian's role is to transform American culture. On this level I cry foul. All in all, while both have a dangerous ecclessiology, Wallis picture of the kingdom looks more faithfu; to Scriptures to me.